Do Mental Snapshots Make The Memory?

Etching a pane of crystal-blue sky, the space shuttle Columbia burned itself into the nation's collective memory. Some of the most arresting images of the shuttle's disintegration came from amateurs, backyard astronomers and space buffs with lens aimed at the morning sky.

But had they not captured the disaster on film, would our understanding of it differ? In other words, if tragedy happens and nobody's there to take a picture, does it inflict a different emotional toll?

For many, the sight of the scattered contrails streaking to Earth summoned visual memories of the Challenger erupting shortly after liftoff more than 15 years ago. Psychologists who have studied the Challenger disaster as an example of so-called flashbulb memory say that such visual references are pivotal to our lasting impression of a major event.

The Columbia disaster ``has all the characteristics of a flashbulb event,'' including massive media coverage and powerful emotional response, said William Hirst, a New School University professor who is also studying long-term memories related to the Sept. 11 attacks. Columbia's demise was more remote, less visible than Challenger's, said Hirst, ``but ultimately what's important is the emotional reaction.''

Images summon emotions when words fall short. What we see, we feel.

The Columbia tragedy resonated with Edward Earle, the curator of digital media at the International Center for Photography in New York, in a photograph of an astronaut's helmet recovered on the ground.

``It was part of the human being. All protection had failed,'' Earle said.

But it was the sight of the disintegration itself, unfolding almost 40 miles above like a celestial event gone awry, that brought home the immediacy of the loss. Not only did the nation taken a direct hit to its psyche, but it saw the blow.

``There's no doubt that a powerful image will push something forward into the collective consciousness,'' said Mitchell Stephens, professor of journalism at New York University and author of ``A History of News.''

``Our collective memory of Sept. 11 hangs on a series of moving, moving images.''

Not only were fewer people killed at the Pentagon that day, but there was less visual evidence of the attack, causing it to take a backseat to the devastation in New York.

``The fact that the images were available from the number of cameras aimed at the twin towers did etch it more on our memories,'' Stephens said.

But does a story carry less power when it doesn't have iconic images attached to it? Just as an evocative image can capture the essence of story, so can the absence of an image obscure an important issue.

The Persian Gulf War, for example, is remembered by many Americans in terms of the grainy footage transmitted by cruise missiles. The damage wrought by those missiles was largely invisible to American audiences, but foreign editors were less tentative in their choices.

``American editors may have not wanted to bring that kind of horror back to the American public,'' Earle said.

Even at home, the same dilemma applies to issues that are less than telegenic.

``Let me have a good visual for the budget situation in the United States,'' said Jonathan Kotler, co-editor of ``American Datelines: Major News Stories from Colonial Times to the Present.''

``That's the biggest thing facing the country, but if you can't see it, it's totally gone.''

For shuttle video and photo galleries of the Columbia disaster, visit www.ctnow.com.